Witness says school officials met to determine how to account for payment to superintendent

Regarding follow-up discussions of campaign-finance forms, EcoBusiness Alliance lawyer Patrick Prindle said it was “highly unusual” for a school district’s lawyer to discuss with officials their political disclosures, a campaign function.

“I genuinely wish I could say I was surprised by the revelation that the school’s counsel met with board members, contriving a scheme to provide cover for Mr. Paul,” Prindle said. “Indeed, doing so would appear to be an improper gift of public funds.”

At his June deposition, Paul said the money was for campaign signs for Hernandez, who was facing voters in November 2010 along with Wells and Romero.

“It was cash given to me by Mr. Loreto Romero,” Paul testified. “He gave me cash for campaign posters for Mrs. Yolanda Hernandez.”

Paul went on to testify that he took the money to a Tijuana print shop to pay for campaign signs. Under additional questioning, Paul said he received no receipt.

According to the new Maden deposition, given Jan. 30, Paul repeatedly spoke with Shinoff, trustees and Maden over the next weeks, a process ending up with the refiled forms.

In early August, Wells, Romero and Hernandez all amended their 2010 campaign filings to reflect donations of campaign signs totaling $1,897.

A receipt from the Studio K print shop in Tijuana for $1,401 accompanied the amendment. It was dated five months before Paul says he met with Loreto Romero and listed Maden as the buyer.

“Did that come as a surprise to you, that your name was on this form?” Prindle asked in the deposition.

“Yes,” answered Maden, who is married to former board member Raquel Marquez-Maden.

It remains unclear why the receipt amounts to $1,401.

“Somebody didn’t do the math right, correct?” Prindle asked Maden in the deposition.

“That would be my understanding,” Maden replied.

Maden told the Watchdog this week, "My takeaway from the meeting was that the board members were provided information that suggested that their forms were incorrect in both amounts of the value of the in-kind contribution and the source of that contribution. While there may have been some doubt in their mind based on two-year-old recollections, they had no substantive proof to the contrary so they amended their forms in good faith based on the best information that was available to them.They were doing what they thought they needed to, to be compliant."

The district’s lawyer, who sat in on the deposition, objected repeatedly that Prindle was leading the witness and was inappropriately invading attorney-client privilege.

In response to a question for this story, Shinoff reminded the Watchdog of Prindle’s motives.

“As you may know the plaintiff in the case in question is seeking approximately $18 million dollars from the district,” Shinoff said.